We all know someone with right-wing libertarian views. The sort of person who will tell you that
Osborne’s austerity cuts are only scratching the surface of what needs to be
done. The sort of person who thinks the
best outcome for all of us is if we did away with the state altogether. The sort of person who, presumably, believes
that downtown Mogadishu is some kind of free-market paradise.
We know how the argument goes:
“We would
be better off without the state…”
“Er… that’s an interesting
idea. But what would stop another
country invading us?”
“Well, obviously, you would have to keep an
army, navy and air force for defence…”
“What if a fellow citizen decides
to beat you up and steal your possessions?”
“Well, obviously, you would need a police force
to maintain law and order…”
“Interesting that you should use
the word law, doesn’t that imply that
we might need to run a system of courts, with lawyers and judges and the like?”
“Well, obviously, you would need courts to
uphold the law…”
“And wouldn’t that suggest that
you would need an education system of some kind so that if you were to end up
before the courts you would be represented by someone with at least half a clue
about what he or she was doing?”
“Well, obviously, you would need some education…”
“And some buildings perhaps? And maybe some roads or railways so you can actually
get to court?..”
So it goes on. The
principle is conceded once you acknowledge that you need armed forces for
defence. All else is the slippery slope
towards today’s centralised and all-encompassing state bureaucracies.
Crucially, nobody set out to create a centralised
bureaucratic state. Rather, it evolved
as the sum total of all of the solutions we put in place to (so we thought)
make our economy operate effectively.
Less obvious state functions like public healthcare have a “market”
function in maintaining a healthy workforce.
Food standards play a similar role, as does dangerous dogs legislation. Research and regulatory agencies were created
to ensure that corporations do not cheat.
Special branches of law were created to punish those who do cheat while
providing redress to those who would otherwise lose out. One way or another, all administration, bureaucracy and law relates back to market efficiency.
When politicians set out to create a single European market,
irrespective of what they may have said to the contrary, what they were
ultimately signing up to was a single European state. There is no alternative direction or
halfway-house here. If you want a
functioning free market, then you have to create a single legislative
framework, presided over by a single state to police it. Consider, for example, the current difficulties
with corporate tax avoidance. This stems
largely from the fact that we have yet to develop a single European tax
system. Put such a system into place,
and corporations could no longer benefit from registering in, say, Luxembourg because
of its generous tax regime. Quite
simply, if you want a single market, then you must have a single set of tax
rules.
Nor can you pick and choose.
You either have free movement of people, goods and services or you don’t. It is inconceivable that, for example, within
the UK Wales would act to prevent English people coming to live here or,
perhaps, from claiming benefits here if they are unable to find work. That is the point of a single market –
everyone gets treated the same. Lose the
principle and you end up with chaos. If,
for example, Britain chose to end the free movement of labour, might not Poland
or Rumania opt to end the free market in goods and services by refusing to
export to or import from Britain?
The issue becomes even clearer when we look at the single
currency – which Britain uniquely seeks to avoid in the long-term. This was the issue that is believed to have
lost the Scots the independence referendum, since it was clear that the Bank of
England could not be simultaneously a Bank of Scotland with a single currency
but two divergent monetary policies. The
people of Greece (and Spain, Portugal and Ireland) know only too well what
happens when governments overspend in the expectation that the non-national
central bank will simply print more money for them. Once Eurozone politicians realise that austerity will not work, inevitably, they will develop a
single tax system and a single monetary policy that will determine the Eurozone
budget. At that point, there will be a
single European state in all but name.
The only real question is whether British people want to be part of it.
Let me put it starkly, as I would in arguing with a
libertarian: if you don’t want the state then you cannot have the market.
This is the key issue of debate over Europe. If you want a single state, fine. You should vote to stay in. If you don’t want a single state, fine. You should vote to leave. But if, Canute-like, you wish to stand before
the rising tide and wish for some form of business and usual, then you should
probably seek a good psychiatrist.
Because only someone whose grasp of reality has seriously slipped would
believe that one or two temporary opt-outs – none of which would be enshrined
in treaty – are going to halt the inexorable march toward political union.
